Ending of Time

Index
Chapter 1 - The Roots Of Psychological Conflict
- 1st April 1980 - Conversation with Prof. David Bohm
Chapter 2 - Cleansing The Mind Of The Accumulation Of Time
- 2nd April 1980 - Conversation with Prof. David Bohm
Chapter 3 - Why Has Man Given Supreme Importance To Thought?
- 8th April 1980 - Conversation with Prof. David Bohm
Chapter 4 - Breaking The Pattern Of Ego-Centred Activity
- 10th April 1980 - Conversation with Prof. David Bohm
Chapter 5 - The Ground Of Being, And The Mind Of Man
- 12th April 1980 - Conversation with Prof. David Bohm
Chapter 6 - Can Insight Bring About A Mutation Of The Brain Cells
- 15th April 1980 - Conversation with Prof. David Bohm
Chapter 7 - Death Has Very Little Meaning
- 17th April 1980 - Conversation with Prof. David Bohm
Chapter 8 - Can Insight Be Awakened In Another
- 19th April 1980 - Conversation with Prof. David Bohm
Chapter 9 - Senility And The Brain Cells
- 1st June 1980 - Conversation with Prof. David Bohm
Chapter 10 - Cosmic Order
- 7th June 1980 - Conversation with Prof. David Bohm
Chapter 11 - The Ending Of 'Psychological' Knowledge
- 18th September 1980 - Conversation with Prof. David Bohm
Chapter 12 - The Mind In The Universe
- 20th September 1980 - Conversation with Prof. David Bohm
Chapter 13 - Can Personal Problems Be Solved, And Fragmentation End
- 27th September 1980 - Conversation with Prof. David Bohm

Acknowledgement
The copyright of this book is held by Krishnamurti Foundations. We are providing this e-book solely for non-commercial usage as a noble service. The printed book can be purchased from Krishnamurti Foundations.

Chapter 11st April 1980 Conversation with Prof. David Bohm The Roots of Psychological Conflict

KRISHNAMURTI: How shall we start? I would like to ask if humanity has taken a wrong turn.

DAVID BOHM: A wrong turn? Well it must have done so, a long time ago, I think.

K: That is what I feel. A long time ago... It appears that way - why? You see, as I look at it, mankind has always tried to become something.

DB: Well possibly. I was struck by something I once read about man going wrong about five or six thousand years ago, when he began to be able to plunder and take slaves. After that, his main purpose of existence was just to exploit and plunder.

K: Yes, but there is the sense of inward becoming.

DB: Well, we should make it clear how this is connected. What kind of becoming was involved in doing that? Instead of being constructive, and discovering new techniques and tools and so on, man at a certain time found it easier to plunder his neighbours. Now what did they want to become?

K: Conflict has been the root of all this.

DB: What was the conflict? If we could put ourselves in the place of those people of long ago, how would you see that conflict?

K: What is the root of conflict? Not only outwardly, but also this tremendous inward conflict of humanity? What is the root of it?

DB: Well, it seems that it is contradictory desires.

K: No. Is it that in all religions, you must become something? You must reach something?

DB: Then what made people want to do that? Why weren't they satisfied to be whatever they were? You see, the religion would not have caught on unless people felt that there was some attraction in becoming something more.

K: Isn't it an avoidance, not being able to face the fact, and therefore moving to something else - to more and more and more?

DB: What would you say was the fact that people couldn't stay with?

K: The Christians have said, Original Sin.

DB: But the wrong turn happened long before that.

K: Yes, long before that. Long before that, the Hindus had this idea of Karma. What is the origin of all this?
DB: We have said that there was the fact that people couldn't stay with. Whatever it was, they wanted to imagine something better.

K: Yes, something better. Becoming.

DB: And you could say that they began to make things technologically better, then they extended this, and said, `I too must become better.'

K: Yes, inwardly become better.

DB: All of us together must become better.

K: That's right. What is the root of all this?

DB: Well, I should think it is natural in thought to project this goal of becoming better. That is, it is intrinsic in the structure of thought.

K: Is it that the principle of becoming better outwardly has moved to becoming better inwardly?

DB: If it is good to become better outwardly, then why shouldn't I become better inwardly?

K: Is that the cause of the conflict?

DB: That is getting towards it. It's coming nearer.

K: Is it coming nearer? Is time the factor? Time - as `I need knowledge in order to do this or that'? The same principle applied inwardly? Is time the factor?

DB: I can't see that time by itself can be the only factor.

K: No, no. Time. Becoming - which implies time.

DB: Yes, but we don't see how time is going to cause trouble. We have to say that time applied outwardly doesn't cause any difficulty.

K: It causes a certain amount - but we are discussing the idea of time, inwardly.

DB: So we have to see why time is so destructive inwardly.

K: Because I am trying to become something.

DB: Yes, but most people would say that this is only natural. You have to explain what it is that is wrong about becoming.

K: Obviously, there is conflict, in that when I am trying to become something, it is a constant battle.

DB: Yes. Can we go into that: why is it a constant battle? It is not a battle if I try to improve my position outwardly.

K: Outwardly, no. It is more or less all right outwardly, but when that same principle is applied inwardly it brings about a contradiction.
DB: And the contradiction is?

K: Between `what is' and `becoming what should be'.

DB: The difficulty is, why is it a contradiction inwardly and not outwardly?

K: Inwardly it builds up a centre, doesn't it, an egotistic centre?

DB: Yes, but can we find some reason why it should do so? Does it build up when we do it outwardly? It seems it need not.

K: It need not.

DB: But when we are doing it inwardly, then we are trying to force ourselves to be something that we are not.

K: Yes. That is a fact. Is it that one's brain is so accustomed to conflict that one rejects any other form of living?

DB: But why have people come to the conclusion that conflict is inevitable and necessary?

K: What is the origin of conflict?

DB: I think we touched on that by saying that we are trying to force ourselves. When we are a certain thing that we want to be, we also want to be something else, which is different; and therefore we want two different things at the same time. Would that seem right?

K: I understand that. But I am trying to find out the origin of all this misery, confusion, conflict, struggle - what is the beginning of it? That's why I asked at the beginning: has mankind taken a wrong turn? Is the origin, `I am not I'?

DB: I think that is getting closer.

K: Yes, that's it. And the `I' - why has mankind created this `I', which must, inevitably, cause conflict? `I' and `you', and `I' better than `you', and so on, and so on.

DB: I think it was a mistake made a long time ago, or, as you call it, a wrong turn, that having introduced separation between various things outwardly, we then kept on doing it - not out of ill will but simply through not knowing better.

K: Quite.

DB: Not seeing what we were doing.

K: Is that the origin of all this conflict?

DB: I am not sure that it is the origin. What do you feel?

K: I am inclined to observe that the origin is the ego, the `me', the`I'.

DB: Yes.

K: If there is no ego, there is no problem, there is no conflict, there is no time - time in the sense of becoming or not becoming; being or not being.

DB: But it might be that we would still slip into whatever it was that made us make the ego in the first place.

K: Wait a minute. Is it that energy - being so vast, limitless - has been condensed or narrowed down in the mind, and the brain itself has become narrowed because it couldn't contain all this enormous energy? You are following what I am saying?

DB: Yes.

K: And therefore the brain has gradually narrowed down to `me', to the `I'.

DB: I don't quite follow that. I understand that that is what happened, but I don't quite see all the steps. You say energy was enormous and the brain couldn't handle it, or decided that it couldn't handle it?

K: It couldn't handle it.

DB: But if it can't handle it, it seems as if there is no way out.

K: No, just a minute. Go slowly. I just want to enquire, push into it a little bit. Why has the brain, with all thought, created this sense of `me', `I'? Why?

DB: We needed a certain sense of identity to function.

K: Yes, to function.

DB: To know where we belong.

K: Yes. And is that the movement which has brought the `me'? The movement of the outer? I had to identify, with the family, the house, the trade or profession. All this gradually became the `me'?

DB: I think that this energy that you are talking about also entered into it.

K: Yes, but I want to lead up to that slowly.

DB: You see, what you say is right, that in some way this sense of the `me' gradually strengthened, but by itself that wouldn't explain the tremendous strength that the ego has. It would only be a habit then. The ego becoming completely dominant required that it should become the focus of the greatest energy; of all the energy.

K: Is that it? That the brain cannot hold this vast energy?

DB: Let's say that the brain is trying to control this - to bring it to order.

K: Energy has no order.
DB: But if the brain feels it can't control something that is going on inside, it will try to establish order.

K: Could we say that the brain, your brain, his brain, her brain, has not just been born; it is very, very old?

DB: In what sense?

K: In the sense that it has evolved.

DB: Evolved, yes, from the animal. And the animal has evolved. So let's say that in a sense this whole evolution is somehow contained in the brain.

K: I want to question evolution. I understand, say, evolution from the bullock cart to the jet.

DB: Yes. But before you question, we have to consider the evidence of man developing through a series of stages. You can't question that, can you?

K: No, of course not.

DB: I mean, physically it is clear that evolution has occurred in some way.

K: Physically, yes.

DB: And the brain has got larger, more complex. But you may question whether mentally evolution has any meaning.

K: You see, I want to abolish time, psychologically. You understand?

DB: Yes, I understand.

K: To me that is the enemy. And is that the cause, the origin of man's misery?

DB: This use of time, certainly. Man had to use time for a certain purpose, but he misused it.

K: I understand that. If I have to learn a language, I must have time.

B: But the misuse of time by extending it inwardly...

K: Inwardly: that is what I am talking about. Is that the cause of man's confusion - introducing time as a means of becoming, and becoming more and more perfect, more and more evolved, more and more loving? You follow what I mean?

DB: Yes, I understand. Certainly if we didn't do that, the whole structure would collapse.

K: That's it.

DB: But I don't know whether there is not some other cause.

K: Just a minute. I want to go into that a little bit. I am not talking theoretically, personally. But to me the idea of tomorrow doesn't exist psychologically - that is, time as a movement, either inwardly or outwardly.

DB: You mean psychological time?

K: Yes, psychological time, and time outwardly. Now if psychological time doesn't exist, then there is no conflict, there is no `me', no `I', which is the origin of conflict. Outwardly, technologically man has moved, evolved.

DB: And also in the inward physical structure.

K: The structure, everything. But psychologically we have also moved outward.

DB: Yes, we have focused our life on the outward. Is that what you are saying?

K: Yes. We have extended our capacities outwardly. And inwardly it is the same movement as outwardly. Now if there is no inward movement as time, moving, becoming more and more, then what takes place? You understand what I am trying to convey? Time ends. You see, the outer movement is the same as the inward movement.

DB: Yes. It is going around and around.

K: Involving time. If the movement ceases, then what takes place? I wonder if I am conveying anything? Could we put it this way? We have never touched any other movement than the outer movement.

DB: Generally, anyway. We put most of our energy into the outer movements.

K: And psychological movement is also outward.

DB: Well, it is the reflection of that outward movement.

K: We think it is inward but it is actually outward, right?

DB: Yes.

K: Now if that movement ends, as it must, then is there a really inward movement - a movement not in terms of time?

DB: You are asking, is there another kind of movement which still moves, but not in terms of time?

K: That's right.

DB: We have to go into that. Could you go further?

K: You see, that word movement means time.

DB: Well, it really means to change from one place to another. But anyway there is still the notion of something which is not static. By denying time you don't want to return to something static, which is still time.

K: Let's say, for instance, that one's brain has been trained, accustomed, for centuries to go North. And it suddenly realizes that going North means everlasting conflict. As it realizes that, the brain itself changes - the quality of the brain changes.

DB: All right. I can see it will wake up in some way to a different movement.

K: Yes, different.

DB: Is the word flow any better?

K: I have been going North all my life, and there is a sudden stoppage from going North. But the brain is not going East or South or West. Then conflict ceases - right? Because it is not moving in any direction.

DB: So that is the key point - the direction of movement. When the movement is fixed in direction, inwardly, it will come to conflict. But outwardly we need a fixed direction.

K: Of course we do. That's understood.

DB: Yes. So if we say the brain has no fixed direction, then what is it doing? Is it moving in all directions?

K: I am a little bit hesitant to talk about this. Could one say, when one really comes to that state, that it is the source of all energy?

DB: Yes, as one goes deeper and more inward.

K: This is the real inwardness; not the outward movement becoming the inner movement, but no outer or inner movement...

DB: Yes, we can deny both the outward and the inner, so that all movement would seem to stop.

K: Would that be the source of all energy?

DB: Yes, perhaps we could say that.

K: May I talk about myself a little bit?

DB: Yes.

K: First about meditation. All conscious meditation is no meditation - right?

DB: What do you mean by conscious meditation?

K: Deliberate, practised meditation, which is really premeditated meditation. Is there a meditation which is not premeditated - which is not the ego trying to become something - or being able to negate?

DB: Before we go ahead, could we suggest what meditation should be. Is it an observation of the mind observing?

K: No. It has gone beyond all that. I am using the word meditation in the sense in which there is not a particle of any sense of trying consciously to become, to reach a level.

DB: The mind is simply with itself, silent.

K: That is what I want to get at.

DB: Not looking for anything.

K: You see, I don't meditate in the normal sense of the word. What happens is that I wake up meditating.

DB: In that state?

K: One night in India I woke up; it was a quarter past twelve, I looked at the watch. And - I hesitate to say this because it sounds extravagant - the source of all energy had been reached. And that had an extraordinary effect on the brain. And also physically. I'm sorry to talk about myself but, you understand, literally, there was no division at all; no sense of the world, of `me'. You follow? Only this sense of a tremendous source of energy.

DB: So the brain was in contact with this source of energy?

K: Yes, and as I have been talking for sixty years, I would like others to reach this - no, not reach it. You understand what I am saying? All our problems are solved. Because it is pure energy from the very beginning of time. Now how am I - not `I', you understand - how is one not to teach, not to help, or push - but how is one to say, `This way leads to a complete sense of peace, of love'? I am sorry to use all these words. But suppose you have come to that point and your brain itself is throbbing with it - how would you help another? You understand? Help - not words. How would you help another to come to that? You understand what I am trying to say?

DB: Yes.

K: My brain - but not mine - has evolved. Evolution implies time, and it can only think, live in time. Now for the brain to deny time is a tremendous activity, for any problem that arises, any question is immediately solved.

DB: Is this situation sustained or is it only for a period?

K: It is sustained, obviously, otherwise there is no point in it. It is not sporadic or intermittent. Now how are you to open the door, how are you to help another to say,`Look, we have been going in the wrong direction, there is only non-movement; and, if movement stops, everything will be correct'?

DB: Well, it is hard to know beforehand if everything is going to be correct.

K: Let's go back to what we began with. That is, has mankind taken a wrong turn, psychologically, not physically? Can that turn be completely reversed? Or stopped? My brain is so accustomed to this evolutionary idea that I will become something, I will gain something, that I must have more knowledge and so on; can that brain suddenly realize that there is no such thing as time? You understand what I am trying to say?

DB: Yes.

K: I was listening the other day to a discussion on television about Darwin, his knowledge and what he achieved - his whole theory of evolution. It seems to me that this is totally untrue psychologically.

DB: It seems that he has given evidence that all species have changed in time. Why is that untrue?

K: Of course. It is obvious.

DB: It is true in one respect, although I think it would be untrue to say the mind evolved in time.

K: Of course.

DB: But physically it seems clear there has been a process of evolution, and that this has increased the capacity of the brain to do certain things. For example, we couldn't be discussing this if the brain had not grown larger.

K: Of course.

DB: But I think you are implying that the mind is not originating in the brain. Is that so? The brain is perhaps an instrument of the mind?

K: And the mind is not time. Just see what that means.

DB: The mind does not evolve with the brain.

K: The mind not being of time, and the brain being of time - is that the origin of conflict?

DB: Well, we have to see why that produces conflict. It is not clear to say that the brain is of time, but rather that it has developed in such a way that time is in it.

K: Yes, that is what I meant.

DB: But not necessarily so.

K: It has evolved.

DB: It has evolved, so it has time within it.

K: Yes, it has evolved, time is part of it.

DB: It has become part of its very structure.

K: Yes.

DB: However, the mind operates without time, although the brain is not able to do so.

K: That means that God is in man, and God can only operate if the brain is quiet, if the brain is not caught in time.

DB: Well, I wasn't meaning that. I see that the brain, having a structure of time, is not able to respond properly to mind. That's really what seems to be involved here.

K: Can the brain itself see that it is caught in time, and that as long as it is moving in that direction, conflict is eternal, endless? You follow what I am saying?

DB: Yes. Does the brain see it?

K: Has the brain the capacity to see in what it is doing now - being caught in time - that in that process there is no end to conflict? That means, is there a part of the brain which is not of time?

DB: Not caught or functioning in time?

K: Can one say that?

DB: I don't know.

K: That would mean - we come back to the same thing in different words - that the brain is not being completely conditioned by time, so there is a part of the brain that is free of time.

DB: Not a part, but rather that the brain is mainly dominated by time, although that doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't shift.

K: Yes. That is, can the brain, dominated by time, not be subservient to it?

DB: That's right. In that moment it comes out of time. I think I can see this - it is dominated only when you give it time. Thought which takes time is dominated, but anything fast enough is not dominated.

K: Yes, that's right. Can the brain - which has been used to time - can it see in that process that there is no end to conflict? See, in the sense of realizing this? Will it realize it under pressure? Certainly not. Will it realize it under coercion, reward or punishment? It will not. It will either resist or escape.

So what is the factor that will make the brain see that the way it has been functioning is not correct? (Let's use that word for the moment.) And what will make it suddenly realize that it is totally mischievous? What will make it? Certainly not drugs or some kind of chemical.

DB: None of these outward things.

K: Then what will make the brain realize this?

DB: What do you mean by realize?

K: Realize that the path along which the brain has been going will always be the path of conflict.

DB: I think this raises the question that the brain resists such a realization.

K: Of course, of course. Because it has been used to the old path, for centuries! How will you make the brain realize this fact? If you could make it realize that, conflict is finished.

You see, people have tried fasting, austerity, poverty, chastity in the real sense, purity, having a mind that is absolutely correct; they have tried going away by themselves; they have tried practically everything that man has invented, but none of these ways has succeeded.

DB: Well, what do you say? It is clear that people pursuing these outward goals are still becoming.

K: Yes, but they never realize that these are outward goals. It means denying all that completely.

DB: You see, to go further, I think that one has to deny the very notion of time in the sense of looking forward to the future, and deny all the past.

K: That's just it.

DB: That is, the whole of time.

K: Time is the enemy. Meet it, and go beyond it.

DB: Deny that it has an independent existence. You see, I think we have the impression that time exists independently of us. We are in the stream of time, and therefore it would seem absurd for us to deny it because that is what we are.

K: Yes, quite, quite. So it means really moving away - again this is only words - from everything that man has put together as a means of timelessness.

DB: Can we say that none of the methods that man uses outwardly is going to free the mind from time?

K: Absolutely.

DB: Every method implies time.

K: Of course. It is so simple.

DB: We start out immediately by setting up the whole structure of time; the whole notion of time is presupposed before we start.

K: Yes, quite. But how will you convey this to another? How will you, or `X', convey this to a man who is caught in time and will resist it, fight it, because he says there is no other way? How will you convey this to him?

DB: I think that you can only convey it to somebody who has gone into it; you are not likely to convey it at all to somebody you just pick up off the street!

K: So then, what are we doing? As that cannot be conveyed through words, what is a man to do? Would you say that to resolve a problem as it arises you have to go into it immediately, because otherwise you may do the most foolish thing and delude yourself that you have resolved it? Suppose I have a problem, any psychological problem - can the mind realize, resolve it immediately? Not deceive itself, not resist it - you understand? But face it, and end it.

DB: Well, with a psychological problem, that is the only way. Otherwise we would be caught in the very source of the problem.

K: Of course. Would that activity end time, the psychological time that we are talking about?

DB: Yes, if we could bring this immediate action to bear on the problem, which is the self.

K: One is greedy, or envious. To end immediately greed, attachment, and so on, will that not give a clue to the ending of time?
DB: Yes, because any action which is not immediate has already brought in time.

K: Yes, yes. I know that.

DB: The ending of time is immediate - right?

K: Immediate, of course. Would that point out the wrong turn that mankind has taken?

DB: Yes, if man feels something is out of order psychologically he then brings in the notion of time, and the thought of becoming, and that creates endless problems.

K: Would that open the door to this sense of time having no place inwardly? Which means, doesn't it, that thought has no place except outwardly?

DB: You are saying that thought is a process which is involved in time.

K: Wouldn't you say that thought is the process of time? Because thought is based on experience, knowledge, memory and response, which is the whole of time.

DB: Let's try to put it that thought, as we have generally known it, is in time.

K: Thought as we know it now is of time.

DB: Yes. I would agree, generally speaking.

K: Generally speaking, thought is time.

DB: It is based on the notion of time.

K: Yes, all right. But to me, thought itself is time.

DB: Thought itself creates time, right.

K: Does it mean, when there is no time there is no thought?

DB: Well no thought of that kind.

K: No. There is no thought. I want just to go slowly.

DB: Could we say that there is a kind of thought which we have lived in which has been dominated by time?

K: Yes, but that has come to an end.

DB: But there may be another kind of thought which is not dominated by time... I mean, you were saying, you could still use thought to do some things.

K: Of course, outwardly that's so.

DB: We have to be careful not to say that thought is necessarily dominated by time.
K: Yes. I have to go from here to there, to my house; that needs time, thought, but I am not talking of that kind of time.

DB: So let's make it clear that you are talking of thought which is aimed at the mind, whose content is the order of the mind.

K: Yes. Would you say knowledge is time?

DB: Well, yes...

K: All knowledge is time.

DB: Yes, in that it has been known, and may project into the future, and so on.

K: Of course, the future, the past. Knowledge - science, mathematics, whatever it is - is acquired through time. I read philosophy, I read this or that, and the whole movement of knowledge involves time. See what I mean!

DB: I think we are saying that man has taken a wrong turn and got caught in this kind of knowledge, which is dominated by time because it has become psychological knowledge.

K: Yes. So he lives in time.

DB: He lives in time because he has attempted to produce knowledge of the nature of the mind. Are you saying that there is no real knowledge of the mind? Would you put it that way?

K: The moment you use the word `knowledge', it implies time. When you end time, in the sense we are talking about, there is no knowledge as experience.

DB: We have to see what the word `experience' means.

K: Experience, memory.

DB: People say, `I learn by experience, I go through something.'

K: Which is becoming!

DB: Well, let's get it clear. You see there is a kind of experience, for example, in one's job, which becomes skill and perception.

K: Of course, but that is quite different.

DB: But we are saying there is no point in having experience of the mind, psychological experience.

K: Yes, let's put it that way. Psychological experience is in time.

DB: Yes, and it has no point, because you cannot say, `As I become skilled in my job I will become skilled in my mind, or skilled fundamentally'.

K: Yes. So where is this leading? I realize that knowledge is time; the brain realizes it, and sees the importance of time in a certain direction, and that there is no value in time at all in another direction. It is not a contradiction.

DB: I would put it that the value of time is limited to a certain direction or area, and beyond that, it has no value.

K: Yes. So what is the mind or the brain without knowledge? You understand.

DB: Without psychological knowledge?

K: Yes, I am talking psychologically.

DB: It is not so much that it is caught in time as that it is without psychological knowledge to organize itself.

K: Yes.

DB: So we are saying that the brain field must organize itself by knowing psychologically all about itself.

K: Is then the mind, the brain, disorder? Certainly not.

DB: No. But I think that people being faced with this might feel there would be disorder.

K: Of course.

DB: I think what you are saying is that the notion of controlling yourself psychologically has no meaning.

K: So knowledge of the `me' - the psychological knowledge - is time.

DB: Yes, I understand the totality of knowledge is `me', is time.

K: So then what is existence without this? There is no time, there is no knowledge in the psychological sense, no sense of `me', then what is there? To come to that point most people would say, `What a horror this is.'

DB: Yes, because it seems there would be nothing.

K: Nothing. But if one has come to that point, what is there? Would you say, because there is nothing, it is everything?

DB: Yes, I would accept that. I know that. That is true, it has all.

K: No meditation, nothing.

DB: No thing.

K: No thing, that's right.

DB: A thing is limited, and this is not a thing because there are no limits... At least, it has everything in potential.

K: Wait, Sir. If it is nothing, and so everything, so everything is energy.

DB: Yes. The ground of everything is energy.

K: Of course. Everything is energy. And what is the source of this thing? Or is there no source of energy at all? Is there only energy?

DB: Energy just is. Energy is `what is'. There is no need for a source. That is one approach, perhaps?

K: No. If there is nothing, and therefore everything, and everything is energy... We must be very careful because here, the Hindus have this idea too, which is that Brahman is everything. You understand? But that becomes an idea, a principle, and then functioning is once more in the brain. But the fact of it is, there is nothing, therefore there is everything, and all that is cosmic energy. But what started this energy?

DB: We are not talking of time.

K: I know we are not talking of time, but you see the Christians would say, `God is energy and He is the source of all energy.' No?

DB: But the Christians have an idea of what they call the Godhead, which is the very source of God too.

K: And also the Hindus, the Arabic and the Jewish worlds have this. Are we going against all that?

DB: It sounds similar in some ways.

K: And yet not similar. We must be careful.

DB: Many things like this have been said over the ages.

K: Then is one just walking in emptiness? Is one living in emptiness?

DB: Well, that is not clear.

K: There is nothing, and everything is energy. What is this?

DB: Well, is there something within the energy?

K: This is not different from energy. This. But the thing that is inside says, `I am totally different from that'.

DB: The `I' encloses itself and says, `I am different, I am eternal.'

K: Why has it done this? Why has the separation arisen? Is it because outwardly I identify with a house and so on, and that identification has moved inwardly?

DB: Yes. And the second point was that once we established a notion of something inward, then it became necessary to protect that. And therefore that built up the separation.

K: Of course.

DB: The inward was obviously the most precious thing, and it would have to be protected with all our energy.

K: Does it mean then that there is only the organism - which part of energy? There is no `me' at all, except the passport name and form; otherwise nothing. And therefore there is everything and therefore all is energy?

DB: Yes, the form has no independent existence.

K: No. There is only the form. That's all.

DB: There is also the energy, you say.

K: That is part of energy. So there is only this, the outward shape.

DB: There is the outward form in the energy.

K: Do you realize what we have said, Sir? Is this the end of the journey?

DB: No, I should think not.

K: Has mankind journeyed through millennia to come to this? That I am nothing, and therefore I am everything, and all energy.

DB: Well it can't be the end, in the sense that it might be the beginning.

K: Wait. That is all I wanted you to begin with. The ending is the beginning - right? Now I want to go into that. You see, in the ending of all this - the ending of time, we will call it briefly - there is a new beginning. What is that? Because otherwise this seems so utterly futile. I am all energy and just the shell exists, and time has ended. It seems so futile.

DB: Yes, if we stop there....

K: That's all.

DB: I think that really this is clearing the ground of all the debris, of all the confusion.

K: Yes. So the ending is a beginning. But what is that? Beginning implies time also.

DB: Not necessarily. I think we said there could be a movement which had no time.

K: That is all. I want to make it clear.

DB: Yes, but it is hard to express. It is not a question of being static, but in some sense the movement has not the order of time. I think we would have to say that now.

K: Yes. So we will use the word `beginning' and deprive it of time.

DB: Because ending and beginning are no special time. In fact they can be any time or no time.

K: No time. Then what takes place? What is happening? Not to me, not to my brain. What is happening? We have said that when one denies time there is nothing. After this long talk, nothing means everything. Everything is energy. And we have stopped there. But that isn't the end.

DB: No.

K: That is not the end. Then what is going on? Is that creation?

DB: Yes, something like that.

K: But not the art of creating like writing or painting.

DB: Perhaps later we can discuss what we mean by creating.

Chapter 22nd April 1980 Conversation with Prof. David Bohm Cleansing the Mind of The Accumulation of Time

KRISHNAMURTI: We were saying that psychological time is conflict, that time is the enemy of man. And that enemy has existed from the beginning of man. And we asked, why has man from the beginning taken a `wrong turn', a `wrong path'? And, if so, is it possible to turn man in another direction in which he can live without conflict? Because, as we said yesterday, the outer movement is also the same as the inner movement. There is no separation between inner and outer. It is the same movement. And we asked whether we were concerned deeply and passionately to turn man in another direction so that he doesn't live in time, with a knowledge only of the outer things. The religions, the politicians, the educators have failed: they have never been concerned about this. Would you agree to that?

DAVID BOHM: Yes. I think the religions have tried to discuss the eternal values beyond time but they don't seem to have succeeded.

K: That is what I want to get at. To them it has been an idea, an ideal, a principle, a value, but not an actuality, and most of the religious people have their anchor in a belief, in a principle, in an image, in knowledge, in Jesus or in something or other.

DB: Yes, but if you were to consider all the religions, say the various forms of Buddhism, they try to say this very thing which you are saying, to some extent.

K: To some extent but what I am trying to get at is: why has man never confronted this problem? Why haven't we said `Let's end conflict'? Instead we have been encouraged because through conflict we think there is progress.

DB: It can be a certain source of stimulus to try to overcome opposition.

K: Yes, Sir, but if you and I see the truth of this, not in abstraction, but actually, deeply, can we act in such a way that every issue is resolved instantly, immediately, so that psychological time is abolished? And as we asked yesterday, when you come to that point where there is nothing and there is everything, where all that is energy - when time ends, is there a beginning of something totally new? Is there a beginning which is not enmeshed in time? Now how shall we discover it? Words are necessary to communicate. But the word is not that thing. So what is there when all time ends? Psychological time, not time of...

DB: ...time of day.

K: Yes. Time as the `me', the ego, and when that completely comes to an end, what is there that begins? Could we say that out of the ashes of time there is a new growth? What is that which begins - no, that word `begins' implies time too.

DB: Whatever we mean, that which arises.

K: That arises, what is it?

DB: Well, as we said yesterday, essentially it is creation, the possibility of creation.

K: Yes, creation. Is that it? Is something new being born?

DB: It is not the process of becoming.

K: Oh, no, that is finished. Becoming is the worst, that is time, that is the real root of this conflict. We are trying to find out what happens when the `I', which is time, has completely come to an end. I believe the Buddha is supposed to have said `Nirvana'. And the Hindus call it Moksha. I don't know whether the Christians call it Heaven...

DB: The Christian mystics have had some similar state...

K: Similar, yes. But you see, the Christian mystics, as far as I understand it, are rooted in jesus, in the Church, in the whole belief. They have never gone beyond it.

DB: Yes, well that seems so. As far as I know anyway.

K: Now we have said belief, attachment to all that is out, finished. That is all part of the `I'. Now when there is that absolute cleansing of the mind from the accumulation of time, which is the essence of the `me', what takes place? Why should we ask what takes place?

DB: You mean it is not a good question?

K: I am just asking myself, why should we ask that? Is there behind it a subtle form of hope? A subtle form of saying, I have reached that point, there is nothing. Then that's a wrong question. Wouldn't you consider that so?

DB: Well, it invites you to look for some hopeful outcome.

K: If all endeavour is to find something beyond the `me', the endeavour and the thing that I may find are still within the orbit of `me'. So I have no hope. There is no sense of hope, there is no sense of wanting to find anything.

DB: What is then moving you to enquire?

K: My enquiry has been to end conflict.

DB: Yes, we have then to be careful. We are liable to produce a hope of ending conflict.

K: No, no; there is no hope. I end it. The moment I introduce the word `hope' there is a feeling of the future.

DB: Yes, that is desire.

K: Desire - and therefore it is of time. So I - the mind - puts all that aside completely; I mean it, completely. Then what is the essence of all this? Is my mind still seeking, or groping after something intangible that it can capture and hold? If that is so, it is still part of time.

DB: Well, that is still desire.

K: Desire and a subtle form of vanity.

DB: Why vanity?

K: Vanity in the sense `I have reached'.

DB: Self-deception.

K: Deception and all forms of illusion arise from that. So it is not that. I am clearing the decks as we go along.

DB: Essentially it seems that you are clearing the movement of desire in its subtle forms.

K: In its subtle forms. So desire too has been put away. Then there is only mind - right?

DB: Yes, but then we have to ask what is meant by nature, if all is mind, because nature seems somewhat independent.

K: But we have also said that all the universe is the mind.

DB: You mean to say nature is the mind?

K: Part of the mind.

DB: The universal mind?

K: Yes.

DB: Not a particular mind?

K: The particular mind then is separate, but we are talking of mind.

DB: You see, we have to make it clear, because you are saying that nature is the creation of universal mind, though nevertheless nature has a certain reality.

K: That is all understood.

DB: But it is almost as if nature were the thought of the universal mind.

K: it is part of it. I am trying to grope towards the particular mind coming to an end; then there is only the Mind, the universal mind - right?

DB: Yes. We have been discussing the particular mind groping through desire, and we said if all of that stopped...

K: That is just my point. If all that has completely come to an end, what is the next step? Is there any next? We said yesterday, there is a beginning, but that word implies part of time.

DB: We won't say so much beginning, perhaps ending.

K: The ending, we have said that.

DB: But now is there something new?

K: Is there something which the mind cannot capture?

DB: Which mind, the particular or the universal?

K: The particular has ended.

DB: Yes. You are saying the universal mind cannot capture it either?

K: That is what we are finding out.

DB: Are you saying there is a reality - or something - beyond universal mind?

K: Are we playing a game of peeling off one thing after another? Like an onion skin, and at the end there is only tears and nothing else?

DB: Well, I don't know.

K: Because we said there is the ending, then the cosmic, the universal mind, and, beyond, is there something more?

DB: Well, would you say this `more' is energy? That energy is beyond the universal mind?

K: I would say yes, because the universal mind is part of that energy.

DB: That is understandable. In a way the energy is alive, you are saying?

K: Yes, yes.

DB: And also intelligent?

K: Wait a minute.

DB: In some way... In so far as it is mind.

K: Now if that energy is intelligent, why has it allowed man to move away in the wrong direction?

DB: I think that that may be part of a process, something that is inevitable in the nature of thought. You see if thought is going to develop, that possibility must exist. To bring about thought in man...

K: Is that the original freedom for man? To choose?

DB: No, that is, thought has to have the capacity to make this mistake.

K: But if that intelligence was operating, why did it allow this mistake?

DB: Well, we can suggest that there is a universal order, a law.

K: All right. The universe functions in order.

DB: Yes, and it is part of the order of the universe that this particular mechanism can go wrong. If a machine breaks down, it is not disorder in the universe, it is part of universal order.

K: Yes. In the universal order there is disorder, where man is concerned.

DB: It is not disorder at the level of the universe.

K: No. At a much lower level.

DB: At the level of man it is disorder.

K: And why has man lived from the beginning in this disorder?

DB: Because he is still ignorant, he still hasn't seen the point.

K: But he is part of the whole, yet in one tiny corner man exists, and has lived in disorder. And this enormous conscious intelligence has not...

DB: Yes, you could say that the possibility of creation is also the possibility of disorder. That if man had the possibility of being creative, there would also be the possibility of a mistake. It could not be fixed like a machine, always to operate in perfect order. The intelligence would not have turned him into a machine that would be incapable of disorder.

K: No, of course not. So is there something beyond the cosmic order, mind?

DB: Are you saying that the universe, that that mind, has created nature which has an order, which is not merely going around mechanically? It has some deeper meaning?

K: That is what we are trying to find out.

DB: You are bringing in the whole universe as well as mankind. What makes you do this? What is the source of this perception?

K: Let's begin again: there is the ending of the `me' as time, and so there is no hope; all that is finished, ended. In the ending of it, there is that sense of nothingness. And nothingness is this whole universe.

DB: Yes, the universal mind, the universal matter.

K: The whole universe.

DB: What led you to say that?

K: Ah. I know. To put it very simply: division has come to an end. Right? The division created by time, created by thought, created by this education, and so on - all that. Because it has ended, the other is obvious.

DB: You mean that without the division then the other is there - to be perceived?

K: Not to be perceived, but it is there.

DB: But then how does one come to be aware that it is there?

K: I don't think one becomes aware of it.

DB: Then what leads you to say it?

K: Would you say it is? Not, I perceive it, or it is perceived.

DB: Yes. It is.

K: It is.

DB: You could almost say that it is saying it. In some sense, you seem to be suggesting that it is what is saying.

K: Yes. I didn't want to put it - I am glad you put it like that! Where are we now?

DB: We are saying that the universe is alive, as it were, it is mind, and we are part of it.

K: We can only say we are part of it when there is no `I'.

DB: No division.

K: No division. I would like to push it a little further; is there something beyond all this?

DB: Beyond the energy, you mean?

K: Yes. We said nothingness, that nothingness is everything, and so it is that which is total energy. It is undiluted, pure, uncorrupted energy. Is there something beyond that? Why do we ask it?

DB: I don't know.

K: I feel we haven't touched it - I feel there is something beyond.

DB: Could we say this something beyond is the ground of the whole? You are saying that all this emerges from an inward ground?

K: Yes, there is another - I must be awfully careful here. You know one must be awfully careful not to be romantic, not to have illusions, not to have desire, not even to search. It must happen. You follow what I mean?

DB: We are saying the thing must come from that. Whatever you are saying must come from that.

K: From that. That's it. It sounds rather presumptuous.

DB: You are actually seeing it. It is not that you look at it and say, that is what I have seen.

K: Oh, no. Then it is wrong.

DB: There isn't a division. Of course, it is easy to fall into delusion with this sort of thing.

K: Yes, but we said delusion exists as long as there is desire and thought. That is simple. And desire and thought are part of the `I', which is time. When desire and time are completely ended, then there is absolutely nothing, and therefore that is the universe, that emptiness, which is full of energy. We can put a stop there...

DB: Because we haven't yet seen the necessity for going beyond the energy. We have to see that as necessary.

K: I think it is necessary.

DB: Yes, but it has to be seen. We have to bring out why it is necessary.

K: Why is it necessary? Tentatively, there is something in us that is operating, there is something in us much more - much - I don't know how to put it - much greater. I am going slowly, slowly. What I am trying to say is, I think there is something beyond that. When I say `I think', you know what I mean.

DB: I understand, yes.

K: There is something beyond that. How can we talk about it? You see, energy exists only when there is emptiness. They go together.

DB: This pure energy you talk about is emptiness. Are you suggesting there is that which is beyond the emptiness, the ground of the emptiness?

K: Yes.

DB: Would that be something in the way of a substance? You see the question is, if it is not emptiness, then what is it?

K: I don't quite follow your question.

DB: Well, you say something beyond emptiness, other than emptiness. I think we can follow to the energy and the emptiness. Now if we suggest something other to that, to the emptiness...

K: This something other.

DB: Yes, then that other must be different from the emptiness. Something other to emptiness, which therefore is not emptiness. Does that make sense?

K: Then it is substance.

DB: Yes, that is what is implied: if it is not emptiness, it is substance.

K: Substance is matter, is it not?

DB: Not necessarily, but having the quality of substance.

K: What do you mean by that?

DB: Matter is a form of substance in the sense that it is energy, but having the form of substance as well, because it has a constant form and it resists change. It is stable, it maintains itself.

K: Yes. But when you use the word `substance', meaning beyond emptiness, does that word convey that meaning?

DB: Well, we are exploring the possible meaning of what you want to say. If you are saying it is not emptiness, then it would not be substance as we know it in matter. But we can see a certain quality which belongs to substance in general; if it has that quality, we could use the word substance, extend the meaning of the word substance.

K: I understand. So could we use the word `quality'?

DB: The word `quality' is not necessarily the emptiness, energy could have the quality of emptiness, you see. And therefore it is something else. Something other might have the quality of substance. That is the way I see it. And is that what you are trying to say?

K: There is something beyond emptiness. How shall we tackle it?

DB: Firstly, what leads you to say this?

K: Simply the fact that there is. We have been fairly logical all along, we have not been caught in any illusions so far. And can we keep that same kind of watchfulness, in which there is no illusion, to find out - or, not find out - that which is beyond emptiness? To come down to earth. Come down to earth in the sense to be communicated. You follow what I mean?

DB: Yes. Well we could come back to the question before: why hasn't it come down?

K: Why hasn't it come down? Has man been ever free from the `I'?

DB: No. Not generally speaking.

K: No. And it demands that the `I' ends.

DB: I think we could look at it this way: that the ego becomes an illusion of that substance. You feel the ego is a substance too in some way.

K: Yes, the ego is substance.

DB: And therefore that substance seems to be...

K: ...untouchable.

DB: But that ego is an illusion of the true substance - it may be that the mind tries to create some sort of illusion of that substance.

K: That is an illusion. Why do you relate it to the other?

DB: In the sense that if the mind thinks it already has this substance, then it will not be open...

K: Of course not. Can that thing ever be put into words? It is not a question of avoiding something, or trying to slither out of some conclusion. But you see, so far we have put everything into words.

DB: Well, I think that once something is properly perceived, then after a while the words come to communicate it.

K: Yes, but can that be perceived? And therefore be communicable? Is this beyond.?

DB: This thing beyond, would you say also it is alive? Life beyond emptiness, is that still life? Living?

K: Living, yes. Oh, yes.

DB: And intelligent?

K: I don't want to use those words.

DB: They are too limited?

K: Living, intelligence, love, compassion; they are all too limited. You and I are sitting here. We have come to a point and there is that thing which perhaps later on might be put into words without any sense of pressure, and so without any illusion. Don't you see beyond the wall? - the word, I mean? We have come to a certain point, and we are saying there is something still more - you understand? There is something behind all that. Is it palpable? Can we touch it? Is it something that the mind can capture? You follow?

DB: Yes. Are you saying it is not?

K: I don't think it is possible for the mind to capture it...

DB: Or grasp it.?

K: Grasp it, understand... for the mind even to look at it. You are a scientist, you have examined the atom, and so on. Don't you, when you have examined all that, feel there is something much more, beyond all that?

DB: You can always feel that there is more beyond that, but it doesn't tell you what it is. It is clear that whatever one knows is limited.

K: Yes

DB: And there must be more beyond.

K: How can that communicate with you, so that you, with your scientific knowledge, with your brain capacity can grasp it?

DB: Are you saying it can't be grasped?

k: No. How can you grasp it? I don't say you can't grasp it. Can you grasp it?

DB: Look, it is not clear. You were saying before that it is ungraspable by...

K: Grasp, in the sense, can your mind go beyond theories? What I am trying to say is, can you move into it? Not move, in the sense of time and all that. Can you enter it? No, those are all words. What is beyond emptiness? Is it silence?

DB: Isn't that similar to emptiness?

K: Yes, that is what I am getting at. Move step by step. Is it silence? Or is silence part of emptiness?

DB; Yes, I should say that.

K: I should say that too. If it is not silence, could we - I am just asking - could we say it is something absolute? You understand?

DB: Well, we could consider the absolute. It would have to be something totally independent; that is what `absolute' really means. It doesn't depend on anything.

K: Yes. You are getting somewhere near it.

DB: Entirely self moving, as it were, self active.

K: Yes. Would you say everything has a cause, and that has no cause at all?

DB: You see, this notion is already an old one. This notion has been developed by Aristotle, that this absolute is the cause of itself.

C: Yes.

DB: It has no cause, in a sense. That is the same thing.

K: You see the moment you said Aristotle... it is not that. How shall we get at this? Emptiness is energy, and that emptiness exists in silence, or the other way round, it doesn't matter - right? Oh, yes, there is something beyond all this. Probably it can never be put into words. But it must be put into words. You follow?

DB: You are saying that the absolute must be put into words, but we feel it can't be? Any attempt to put it into words makes it relative.

K: Yes. I don't know how to put all this.

DB: I think that we have a long history of danger with the absolute. People have put it in words, and it has become very oppressive.

K: Leave all that. You see, being ignorant of what other people have said, Aristotle and the Buddha, and so on, has an advantage. You understand what I mean? An advantage in the sense that the mind is not coloured by other people's ideas, not caught in other people's statements. All that is part of our conditioning. Now, to go beyond all that! What are we trying to do?

DB: I think, to communicate regarding this absolute, this beyond.

K: I took away that word `absolute' immediately.

DB: Then whatever it is; the beyond emptiness and silence.

K: Beyond all that. There is beyond all that. All that is something, part of an immensity.

DB: Yes, well even the emptiness and silence is an immensity, isn't it? The energy is itself an immensity.

K: Yes, I understand that. But there is something much more immense than that. Emptiness and silence and energy are immense, really immeasurable. But there is something - I am using the word, `greater', than that.

DB: I am just considering. I am looking at it. One can see that whatever you say about emptiness, or about any other thing, there is something beyond.

K: No, as a scientist, why do you accept - not accept, forgive me for using that word - why do you even move along with this?

DB: Because we have come this far step by step, seeing the necessity of each step.

K: You see all that is very logical, reasonable, sane.

DB: And also, one can see that it is so right.

K: Yes. So if I say there is something greater than all this silence, energy - would you accept that? Accept in the sense that up to now we have been logical.

DB: We will say that whatever you speak of there is certainly something beyond it. Silence, energy, whatever, then there is always room logically for something beyond that. But the point is this: that even if you were to say there is something beyond that, still you logically leave room for going again beyond that.

K: No.

DB: Well why is that? You see, whatever you say, there is always room for something beyond.

K: There is nothing beyond.

DB: Well that point is not clear, you see.

K: There is nothing beyond it. I stick to that. Not dogmatically or obstinately. I feel that is the beginning and the ending of everything. The ending and the beginning are the same - right?

DB: In which sense? In the sense that you are using the beginning of everything as the ending?

K: Yes. Right? You would say that?

DB: Yes. If we take the ground from which it comes, it must be the ground to which it falls.

K: That's right. That is the ground upon which everything exists, space...

DB: ...energy...

K: ...energy, emptiness, silence, all that is. All that. Not ground, you understand?

DB: No, it is just a metaphor.

K: There is nothing beyond it. No cause. If you have a cause then you have ground.

DB: You have another ground.

K: No. That is the beginning and the ending.

DB: It is becoming more clear.

K: That's right. Does that convey anything to you?

DB: Yes, well I think that it conveys something.

K: Something. Would you say further, there is no beginning and no ending?

DB: Yes. It comes from the ground, goes to the ground, but it does not begin or end.

K: Yes. There is no beginning and no ending. The implications are enormous. Is that death - not death in the sense, I will die, but the complete ending of everything?

DB: You see at first you said that the emptiness is the ending of everything, so in what sense is this more, now? Emptiness is the ending of things, isn't it?

K: Yes, yes. Is that death, this emptiness? Death of everything the mind has cultivated. This emptiness is not the product of the mind, of the particular mind.

DB: No, it is the universal mind.

K: That emptiness is that.

DB: Yes.

K: That emptiness can only exist when there is death - total death - of the particular.

DB: Yes.

K: I don't know if I am conveying this.

DB: Yes, that is the emptiness. But then you are saying that, in this ground, death goes further?

K: Oh, yes.

DB: So we are saying the ending of the particular, the death of the particular, is the emptiness, which is universal. Now are you going to say that the universal also dies?

K: Yes, that is what I am trying to say.

DB: Into the ground.

K: Does it convey anything?

DB: Possibly, yes.

K: Just hold it a minute. Let's see it. I think it conveys something, doesn't it?

DB: Yes. Now if the particular and the universal die, then that is death?

K: Yes. After all, an astronomer says everything in the universe is dying, exploding, dying.

DB: But of course you could suppose that there was something beyond.

K: Yes, that is just it.

DB: I think we are moving. The universal and the particular. First the particular dies into the emptiness, and then comes the universal.

K: And that dies too.

DB: Into the ground, right?

K: Yes.

DB: So you could say the ground is neither born nor dies.

K: That's right.

DB: Well, I think it becomes almost inexpressible if you say the universal is gone, because expression is the universal.

K: You see - I am just explaining: everything is dying, except that. Does this convey anything?

DB: Yes. Well it is out of that that everything arises, and into which it dies.

K: So that has no beginning and no ending.

DB: What would it mean to talk of the ending of the universal? What would it mean to have the ending of the universal?

K: Nothing. Why should it have a meaning if it is happening? What has that to do with man? You follow what I mean? Man who is going through a terrible time. What has that got to do with man?

DB: Let's say that man feels he must have some contact with the ultimate ground in his life, otherwise there is no meaning.

K: But it hasn't. That ground hasn't any relationship with man. He is killing himself, he is doing everything contrary to the ground.

DB: Yes, that is why life has no meaning for man.

K: I am an ordinary man; I say, all right, you have talked marvellously of sunsets, but what has that got to do with me? Will that or your talk help me to get over my ugliness? My quarrels with my wife or whatever it is?

DB: I think I would go back, and say we went into this logically starting from the suffering of mankind, showing it originates in a wrong turning, that leads inevitably...

K: Yes, but man asks, help me to get past the wrong turn. Put me on the right path. And to that one says, please don't become anything.

DB: Right. What is the problem then?

K: He won't even listen.

DB: Then it seems to me that it is necessary for the one who sees this to find out what is the barrier to listening.

K: Obviously you can see what is the barrier.

DB: What is the barrier?

K: `I'.

DB: Yes, but I meant more deeply.

K: More deeply, all your thoughts, deep attachments - all that is in your way. If you can't leave these, then you will have no relationship with that. But man doesn't want to leave these.

DB: Yes, I understand. What he wants is the result of the way he is thinking.

K: What he wants is some comfortable, easy way of living without any trouble, and he can't have that.

DB: No. Only by dropping all this.

K: There must be a connection. There must be some relationship with the ground and this, some relationship with ordinary man. Otherwise, what is the meaning of living?

DB: That is what I was trying to say before. Without this relationship...

K: ...there is no meaning.

DB: And then people invent meaning.

K: Of course.

DB: Even going back, the ancient religions have said similar things, that God is the ground, so they say seek God, you know.

K: Ah, no, this isn't god.

DB: No, it is not god, but it is saying the same. You could say that `god` is an attempt to put this notion a bit too personally perhaps.

K: Yes. Give them hope, give them faith, you follow? Make life a little more comfortable to live.

DB: Well, are you asking at this point: how is this to be conveyed to the ordinary man? Is that your question?

K: More or less. And also it is important that he should listen to this. You are a scientist. You are good enough to listen because we are friends. But who will listen among the other scientists? I feel that if one pursues this we will have a marvellously ordered world.

DB: Yes. And what will we do in this world?

K: Live.

DB: But, I mean, we said something about creativity...

K: Yes. And then if you have no conflict, no `I', there is something else operating.

DB: Yes, it is important to say that, because the Christian idea of perfection may seem rather boring because there is nothing to do!

K: We must continue this some other time, because it is something that has got to be put into orbit.

"Perception is our only real knowledge or religion. Talking about it for ages will never make us know our soul. There is no difference between theories and atheism. In fact, the atheist is the truer man. Every step I take in the light is mine forever. When you go to a country and see it, then it is yours. We have each to see for ourselves; teachers can only "bring the food", we must eat it to be nourished. Argument can never prove God save as a logical conclusion."
"It is impossible to find God outside of ourselves. Our own souls contribute all the divinity that is outside of us. We are the greatest temple. The objectification is only a faint imitation of what we see within ourselves."Swami VivekanandaComplete Works of Swami Vivekananda - Vol-7